D
Dermendrah a/l Ravichandran
Person 1 case
Dermendrah a/l Ravichandran appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
pa-12b-32-07-2024
DERMENDRAH A/L RAVICHANDRAN v 1. ) THIBAAN RAJ A/L RAJENDARAN 2. ) SUJATHA A/P PERUMALOO 3. ) ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD
MYHC 20 February 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Dermendrah a/l Ravichandran
Dermendrah a/l Ravichandran appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning February 2025 to February 2025. Dermendrah a/l Ravichandran appeared as appellant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Dermendrah a/l Ravichandran?
Dermendrah a/l Ravichandran appears in 1 published judgment from February 2025 to February 2025. Most commonly as appellant (1 cases).
Practice Areas
9Dalam membuat keputusan, saya merujuk kepada undang-undang mantap yang menjadi panduan kepada Mahkamah dalam mendengar rayuan. Dalam kes Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors 2020 10 CLJ 1, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan seperti yang berikut: 1 "The law is clear in that the principle on which an appellate court could interfere with findings of fact by the trial court is 'the plainly wrong test' principle. The principle encompasses differing and multiple circumstances but must necessarily apply, inter alia, to situations where it can be shown that the impugned decision is vitiated with plain material errors, or where crucial evidence had been misconstrued, or where the trial judge had so manifestly not taken proper advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses or not properly analysed the entirety of the evidence before him, or where a decision was arrived at without adequate judicial appreciation of the evidence such as to make it rationally unsupportable. This said, the criterion that is central to appellate intervention must remain that deference to the trier of fact is still the rule and not the exception; and the plainly wrong test ought not to be used by the appellate court as a means to substitute the impugned decision with its own". 1